Overhead small talk at this afternoon's hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials:

Railroad Industry Lobbyist: (whisper) So, what's the right answer? They're incorrect that we're not improving safety?

Railroad Industry Lobbyist 2: (whisper) Say they can't prove we're not improving safety.

Together: (snicker)

...

Railroad Industry Lobbyist: [Muslims] believe it's okay to kill Christians and Jews because that's what God wants. How can you talk to people like that?

...

Lobbyist 1: Hey, I like your pink tie. I wore my pink tie yesterday.

Lobbyist 2: Well, I'm glad you didn't wear it today. There's nothing wrong with wearing a pink tie, but you don't want to be in a room full of guys wearing pink ties.

Lobbyist 3: You sure don't want them behind you!

All: (laughter)

Lobbyist 4: Keep 'em in your line of vision!

All: (laughter)

Lobbyist 2: Don't drop the soap!

All: (laughter)

The following was posted by my friend Greg as a comment on my previous post about the Internet, the illusion of a global network, and a quote from Ethan Zuckerman on whether or not the Internet is creating divisions rather than a global community. Greg's comment, I believe, should not be relegated to the black hole of comments on this blog, and thus gets reprinted here in its entirety.

I too agree that the notion of "common global internet is merely an illusion." In a world transected by a panoply of languages, cultures, religions, economies, and governments, the very concept of a "common global" anything seems inherently suspect. Mr. Oldmixon also rightly picks up on what appears to me to be ethnocentric undertones in Mr. Zuckerman's statements.

The quote from Mr. Zuckerman's interview, as posted on Rezwan's blog, speaks of an Internet increasingly "fragmented" by China, and other prominent non-western nations, that "play[s] by its own rules." Whose rules? What rules? May be Mr. Zuckerman is speaking of the Chinese Government's much bemoaned use of censorship and the like. Unfortunately, the quote refers only to "users." As such, we are left wondering.

While the Internet, thanks to ingenious projects like Mr. Zuckerman's Global Voices and Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child, is lowering the threshold to broader communication and collaboration in novel, meaningful, and exciting ways, its efficacy as a genuinely revolutionary technology is still bound by the elements that limit all technology: wealth, education, and development in general. Until these elements become more aligned within and among nations, the full potency of technology will continue to be blunted.

To ask, "Is the technology that we thought was uniting us really dividing us?" also seems a bit simplistic to me. As a technology, how on earth could the Internet be dividing us more than it is uniting us? What divides us is far older, deeper, and more powerful than the Internet.

Before fretting too much about whether this technology will be the cultural panacea Mr. Zuckerman seems to be hoping for, let's get some perspective. The Internet is, by any historical metric, a nascent platform. Though the Internet has evolved substantially since its birth in 1969 as ARAPNET, it is nonetheless a young technology, even in its current incarnation. Perhaps its relentless evolution inhibits us from seeing this.

Human history, in a broad sense, has been punctuated by the continued development and uneven dissemination of various technologies. The use of these technologies, from writing to the Internet, has been taken up disparately by different people at different times for different reasons. Indeed, writing made its first appearance during the 7th millennium, and today, nearly ten thousand years later, it is still hardly universal.

Not only is writing limited in its use, but it is also highly varied in its application. These two features are prominent in today's development of the Internet. And why shouldn't they? We are notoriously bad at diffusing what little knowledge we have accumulated, and our cultures have always been an important source of diversity.

Given our failures at the former, and the importance of the latter, I wonder if any one technology, however powerful, will ever truly unite us.

Rezwan has a great post about the globalization of the internet. I agree that, as it now exists, a common global network "is really an illusion," and for reasons similar to those Rezwan notes - it's really a global network of the educated middle and upper classes. I cannot, for example, easily connect with some of my friends in Bangladesh who neither have ready nor reliable internet access.

I do think, though, that we are moving towards a common global network, even if it's still not accessible to all. After all, I can connect with Rezwan in Germany, Imran in Dhaka, Jarred in London, Lauren in Bulgaria - and we can all share our thoughts and opinions, our beliefs and cultures, and we can, through that connection, learn more about ourselves and each other.

But I am particularly troubled by the following that was quoted in Rezwan's post:

More and more web pages are appearing in languages other than English...Is the technology that we thought was uniting us really dividing us?

The so-called problem, it seems, is not with different ways that technology is being used, but that people are using the technology to discuss communities that Ethan (the author of the quote) is not a part of using languages that the he does not understand.

This smacks of Western colonialism. As I'm not a subscriber to New Scientist, I can't read the entire article, so I don't know whence Ethan's optimism. But if his concern is, as it appears to be from the above quote, that the so-called developing world (dare we say, the Orient?) has taken the West's invention and made it its own, that's only a problem if one's idea of a common global network is really global assimilation.

I, for one, am ecstatic that I can watch NTV online, and, relatedly, that I can access an electronic English-Bangla dictionary. And I'm not at all threatened by people in China or Bangladesh or Syria using the Internet to discuss amongst themselves their own lives and communities. They certainly don't need our input.

Furthermore, as we expand communications infrastructure, those whose voices have been for so long hijacked by hegemonic powers will be finally able to speak for themselves on a global platform, one that can reach into homes in Rangpur, Charlottesville, and Nata Village.

Building a global network does not mean homogenizing the globe. One of the greatest characteristics of New York City is that so many communities and cultures are preserved and exist together simultaneously. This should be no cause for pessimism, but for hope.

As such, Rezwan hits it on the head in his conclusion:

I think the lookout for the technologically advanced West should be to build tools to help prosper these local communities. Because only through debates, discussions, sharing and openness civilizations and democracies can prosper. Otherwise it will be easier for authoritarian regimes in some countries to prolong their presence.

Here's to the future

Race in the news:

College students in Texas claim they didn't mean any disrespect with their MLK Day party at which the all-white attendees ate fried chicken, drank 40 oz. bottles of malt liquor, and dressed like Aunt Jemima or rappers. Attendee Jeremy Pelz said "one of [his] best friends is black or African American, whichever you deem politically correct."

While Jade Goody has apologised to, um, India? for her treatment of Shilpa Shetty on the unfortunate television show, Big Brother, a new "reality TV" star has picked up her baton.

Lucy Buchanan, on the "reality TV" show Shipwrecked, said,

"I'm for slavery, but that's never going to come back." She added that Britain has "way too many cultures" and fat people are "offensive".

Not one to make mealy mouthed claims to having "a black friend", Buchanan explained her position further:

When another contestant said she did not like racists, Buchanan replied: "I'm afraid you have one here."

And, not to completely leave out the President, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush said of our "enemy"

"Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite."

Our "enemies", of course, being whom? Based on previous statements and actions of his government, I think it's pretty safe to say he means, "brown people", though certainly Arabs, Muslims, and Hugo Chavez. Though, to his credit, the President does have "a black friend."

Far be it from me to question the strategic wisdom of Steve Rosenthal and Markos Moutlisas Zuniga, but I can't help but scratch my head at the decision to name their new lobbyist group - They Work For Us.

The right comes up with great names like, "Club for Growth." Hey, I like growth! Who doesn't like growth!

What do we get? Names that practically scream, "Special interests! Inside ball!"

If you wanted to go for the whole "define who they are suppused to work for" bit, wouldn't you want to say, They Work For YOU?

Of course, I don't get paid six figures to come up with this stuff, so what do I know?

I'd like to note the reason I am most uncomfortable with the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency, a reason no one else seems to have noticed.

In a nation of 300 million people, allowing two families to trade the Presidency back and forth for decades is an acutely bad sign for the state of democracy.

1988 - Bush
1992 - Clinton
1996 - Clinton
2000 - Bush
2004 - Bush
2008 - Clinton?

On a previous blog (now long gone, I'm afraid), I once described a lecture by Alan Dershowitz I attended at the University of Texas. Dershowitz was promoting his 2003 book, The Case for Israel. Sitting in the audience, I was shocked to hear Dershowitz, a respected law professor and fairly prominent public figure, offering poor excuses for indefensible practices such as torture, comprehensive domestic surveillance, and torturing and killing family members of suspects as a means of "deterrence."

If I remember correctly, Dershowitz suggested that freedom per se is not so important so long as we feel free, mostly through our ability to live comfortable, consumer-driven lives. At the time, I hypothesized that the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, DC had scared Dershowitz out of his mind, and that his critical thinking skills had been warped by his fear.

Today, I'm reminded of this speech of Dershowitz's as I read his blatantly racist screed slandering former President Jimmy Carter. According to Dershowitz, Carter "has been bought and paid for by Arab money." And lest you not understand what "Arab money" is, he explains: "dirty blood-money from dictators, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and supporters of terrorism."

In a follow-up post, Dershowitz continues his character assassination:

In reading Carter’s statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler’s government became clear. Harvard of the nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.

Strong words from a man who has publicly suggested that we engage in the torture and killing of innocent people. So where, you might ask, does Dershowitz find evidence for these charges? Quelle surprise! Dershowitz links to a post on the thoroughly ridiculous conspiracy site "Front Page Magazine."

I'm rather at a loss for what to say about Mr. Dershowitz. As an intellectual, he has thoroughly discredited himself over the past few years. Keeping company with the likes of the people who write for "Front Page Magazine" is bad enough, propagating their racist poison is worse.

But what's really sad is more than watching an old man make a fool of himself, it's the demonstration that people still can't talk about the ongoing crisis in Israel/Palestine without regressing to racism and shallow character assassination. If any real progress is to be made in Israel/Palestine, if we truly want peace to fall on the region, people are going to have be willing to engage in open and honest dialogue. Something Mr. Dershowitz appears to be unwilling, or unable to do.

Last summer, John Yoo, a former Department of Justice lawyer and contributor to the PATRIOT Act as well as legal theories justifiying torture, said in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

"What the court is doing is attempting to suppress creative thinking."

At the time I was a bit disgusted that someone so well-educated would treat issues as grave as torture and basic human rights like some over-the-top high school debate counterplan, devoid of any real impact and impressive only for the author's willingness to say with a straight face something as obviously silly as "nuke war good".

So, I suppose I should not be surprised to read the latest creative thinking from Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

Sen. Arlen Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

AG Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.*

The Bush administration began by arguing that people they arbitrarily decide are "enemy combatants" have no right of habeas corpus. Now they're arguing that nobody does.

UPDATE: The Consortium News has more.

UPDATE 2: ThinkProgress has the video.
*emphasis mine

This past weekend the Mrs. and I spent in New York City. Our trip was inspired by two things: First, we had a certificate for a free hotel stay. Second, this Financial Times review of an exhibit currently showing at the Guggenheim, El Greco to Picasso.

El Greco to Picasso is a fantastic exhibit of Spanish art spanning from, well, from El Greco to Picasso. I can't do better than Clare Henry's review in the FT, which I highly recommend reading, but I do want to encourage those of you with the ability to do so to see this exhibit before it closes on 28 March. Also, a word to the wise - get there early. We were very lucky that we arrived when we did, because when we left the line for tickets filled the rotunda, went out the door, and extended down the block.

I'll leave you with a little teaser. The persons responsible for the composition and arrangement of the exhibit deserve immense gratitude. The works are displayed in a way that showcases their beauty while simultaneously walking the viewer through an easy-to-digest lesson in art history. One facet of the exhibit that I found very interesting was the juxtaposition of treatments of a subject by different artists in different times/schools. All together, a brilliant show.

  

Commenter Rezwan points to an informative article on blogging and Bangladesh. A lot of good links in the article, and for those of you looking for more information, I suggest clicking through, and checking out Rezwan's excellent blog as well.

While it's true that "the world can ill afford another throwback to Taliban-led Afghanistan," The Wall Street Journal gets it wrong when they say "[t]hat's exactly where Bangladesh is headed."

Bangladesh's political situation has been rapidly deteriorating over the past year, coming to full-scale meltdown yesterday when President Iajuddin Ahmed resigned as Chief Advisor to the Caretaker Government, and issued a Proclamation of Emergency pursuant to the Constitution. But, much like in the USA, religious fundamentalism in Bangladesh is a symptom, not the disease.

When Ershad amended the Constitution to declare that Islam is the state religion, he did so not out of a sense of pious fundamentalism, but out of political calculation - he chose to make concessions to religious fundamentalists in order to capture their voting base. This is similar to the religious strategy of the Republican Party in the United States.

Subsequent politicians saw the advantage of adding the religious vote to their coalitions, resulting in the BNP's alliance with Jamaat-e-Islami, and the Awami League's ill-considered courting of Bangladesh Khelafat-e-Majlish. Dr. Abdullah A Dewan explained the political calculation behind this strategy in The Daily Star last week.

The question as to why both the alliances are flirting with the bigots can be explained using a game theoretic "electoral gain matrix," analogous to the problem of "prisoner's dilemma" which is almost always presented in describing oligopoly firms' interdependence in price-setting behaviour.

Box - 1: Shows that without any alliance with bigots, both BNP and AL have equal chances of winning 140 (or majority) seats in the parliament.

Box - 2: Shows that if the AL allies with the bigots (with BNP contesting by itself) it wins the majority in the parliament handily.

Box - 3: Reverses the scenario presented in Box-2.

Box - 4: Both AL and BNP form alliances with the bigots and are, once again, evenly matched up (that is, equal probability of winning the majority).

Under the prevailing political milieu, the outcome in Box-4 is inevitable and cannot reverse any of the scenarios that preceded it, unless the bigots break up the alliance with one of the two parties, or with both. Either party risks loss of seats if it extricates itself from alliance with the bigots. The outcome in Box-4 is the Nash Equilibrium, named after the famous mathematician John Nash, who formulated it and shared the 1994 economics Nobel Prize.

The Wall Street Journal does manage to see the true underlying problem:

And herein lies the problem: Bangladesh may have a democracy in name, but it possesses a rickety system in practice. That's because while the BNP and Awami League cooperated to reestablish democracy in Bangladesh in 1991, they never agreed on the fundamental nature and purpose of politics. Government by both parties has been a quest for power without opposition. In a system of checks and balances, that's impossible. Rather than work through the system, the two parties have slowly eroded democratic institutions.

But their conclusion - that Bangladesh is on the brink of becoming a Shari'ah state, fails to consider the fact that the vast majority of Bangladeshi citizens strongly reject violence, intolerance, and extremism.

Flirting with religious fundamentalism for political gain is a dangerous practice - something to be considered by the Awami League, the BNP, Republicans, Democrats, and all political parties across the globe. But the most effective way of combating extremism is support for free and democratic elections, popular political participation, and meaningful economic development. Suggesting that a moderate developing country like Bangladesh is on the brink of becoming a fundamentalist state gives undeserved attention to a tiny minority of extremists, and takes attention away from finding real solutions to Bangladesh's political crisis.

UPDATE: I would like to make clear that I do not believe Bangladesh is on the brink of becoming a Shari'ah state. This was the opinion put forth by the Wall Street Journal, and I believe they are incorrect in their analysis.

A couple of interesting things from President Bush's speech last night.

First, I found his description of failure uncannily familiar:

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.

I'm trying to figure out which of those "consequences of failure" haven't already manifest.

Second, Bush's plan for victory is sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq. How is this any different from what we've been doing?

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

There are a little more than 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq right now. So, what Bush is saying is that 150,000 wasn't enough to really maintain control. Just not enough people. By, oh, 13 percent. We were that close. Just needed a little tweak. If we just increase troop numbers by 13 percent, we cross the magic threshold and peace falls on the sands of Iraq.

While President Bush unveils his plan to keep winning the war in Iraq, I am reminded by a 2004 Amazon.com customer review just how great this war has been.

This book, a critical assault on America's invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, makes many wrongheaded conjectures. The worst mistake made in this book is its many assertions that the war in Iraq has lead to a weakening of America influence in the Middle east. In Iran the youth are pro-American and the Clerics will soon be thrown from office. Libya is giving up its arms. The Turks are fighting terror. The Syrians have been bumbled. The Pakistanis are cooperating and arresting the people the funded only five years ago, the Taliban. The invasion of Iraq has lessoned American need for Saudi oil, so on the final analysis the war in Iraq has actually reversed decades of American embarrassment in the Arab world, from the hostages in Iran in 1979 to the Beirut crises of 1982. The reality, not found in this book, is that American power is gaining in the Middle east and America is changing the agenda of many nations in the region. This critical account simply doesn't pass muster due to the wide range of facts against it.

Well, now that all that is taken care of, if you'll excuse me, I've got a winged pig to catch.

I've never really understood the fascination with the television show "24". Here's a show based on the gimmick that it was a unique one-shot: one season, 24 hours, and the show is over. Except, like Bush & Co.'s "War on Terror", the show trudges on years later and never really seems to get anywhere. At this point it has devolved into predictable, simpleminded war-porn for America's battalions of Cheeto and soda fueled sofa-warriors.

So it suprises us not in the least to read this morning that Senators Cornyn (R - Tx) and McCain (R - Ariz) are whoring themselves out recording promo ads for the show.

Quick, who said the following?:

“When bad things happen to good people, it’s probably fate. When bad things happen to bad people, it’s probably Jack Bauer. And I can’t wait to see what Jack Bauer has in store for the bad guys this season on ‘24.’”Was it a blogger? A football announcer? President Palmer? Chuck Norris? Of course not, silly rabbit, it was Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). And Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will soon be recorded saying something similar.

Cornyn, the former Texas attorney general, is a devoted watcher of the Fox show and has recorded two promotional TV spots for its upcoming season premiere. The ads will run on Fox News Channel beginning Friday.

And a GOP source said McCain — a fellow “24” fan who actually appeared on the show last season — also has agreed to tape some promos this week.

That first quote above was one of Cornyn’s scripts. The second script: “Here in Congress protecting the American people and winning the war on terror is our number one priority. But has anyone also noticed that there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States since Jack Bauer has appeared on television? Think about it. And check out this season of ‘24.’”

“We wanted to show people another side to legislators, the funny side,” explained Cornyn spokesman Brian Walsh.

via Roll Call

Memo to Brian Walsh: We just assumed your boss was pure satire all along. You mean he's serious when he speaks?

Seriously, though, how pathetic has the macho posturing become when Senators make the PR decision to align themselves with worn-out tv shows? Perhaps it's just a natural result from being so long aligned with worn-out policies.

I propose that FOX and the Republican Party just get it overwith and merge completely. Then we can all tune in to the weekly episodes of "GOP" - rehashed A-Team scripts recast with Dick Cheney as "Hannibal" Smith, Condi Rice as "Faceman" Peck, Don Rumsfeld as "BA Baracus", and George W. Bush as "Howling Mad" Murdock.

The recent actions of the Awami League have been confusing and frustrating. Last month Sheikh Hasina made an impassioned speech about the importance of secular government, only to be followed by the release of a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the fundamentalists Bangladesh Khelafat-e-Majlish. Following the subsequent outcry, Awami League spokesmen tried to downplay the agreement.

Of course, this all came even after AL teamed up with former dictator Hossain Mohammad Ershad and his Jatiya Party - a poorly considered agreement perhaps best illustrated by Ershad's disqualification from the polls due to his conviction on charges of official corruption.

Things have taken a turn for the worse as the Awami League announced that they would contest the polls only to turn around a week later and announce they would boycott the polls.

Sheikh Hasina is now calling for a blockade and justifying their withdrawal from the elections saying

We've tried our best to participate in the election but we cannot step into a trap of a stage-managed election and give it legitimacy

Hasina has it all wrong. Awami League and their allies need to stop trying to out-maneuver the BNP by finding their own fundamentalists and calling their own hartals. These are short-sighted attempts that, at best, yield short-lived gains in power.

AL and the "grand alliance" should contest the polls. One of the more difficult aspects of democracies is the avoidance, not only of corruption, but even the appearance of such. By withdrawing from the election, the Awami League casts doubt on their own willingness to act in good faith.

That the election is "rigged" remains to be seen. If AL officers have some solid proof, they should make it public. But by throwing around accusations and calling hartals, the Awami League at the very least appear to be less interested in democratic elections than street politics.

In the U.S., the Democrats suffered under the pervasive corruption in the Republican party over the past several years. Under the leadership of Tom DeLay, the House of Representatives became a broken branch of government. But the Democrats didn't withdraw from government, they made public the corruption of the Republican leadership and introduced legislation to combat that corruption. The American people saw what were largely considered to be illegitimate elections and acts of government, and gave the Democrats control of Congress.

The Awami League may believe they are acting in their best interests, but they are actually playing into the hands of those who would undermine the fragile democratic government in Bangladesh. Furthermore, they are acting against the interests of the people - the exact opposite of a proper strategy for building political support.

By acting in the interests of the people, political parties build support on the ground. They also stand in sharp contrast to any alleged corruption. As people are fond to say in economics, "a rising tide lifts all boats." This is certainly true for politics. By acting in the best interests of the people, the opposition alliance can not only help the people of Bangladesh, they can help themselves as well.

Oliver North says the Surge! plan sounds "eerily" familiar.

The call for incrementally increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq -- a "solution" that was first proffered last summer as the congressional election campaign heated up -- sounds eerily like Lyndon Johnson's plan to save Vietnam in the mid 1960s.

Of course, for people who think the war in Vietnam was a success, there's no telling what this means.

I just received the following e-mail from a lobbyist friend,

The only member who voted against the ethics rules changes (430-to-1), and the only member who refused to stand as the gavel was handed to Pelosi, was...

Answer? Dan Burton

Class act.

UPDATE: It has come to my attention that Dan Burton voted against the ethics package, but Joe Barton wouldn't stand for no woman Speaker.

The FBI is investigating terrorist communications including a timetable for assassinating members of Congress. Al-Qaeda? Iraqi insurgency? Radical Islamicists? No.

A conservative radio host from New Jersey

via ThinkProgress

Over the past few years, there has been a common refrain among progressives that the growing gap between the wealthiest few and the rest of the country is widening. This growing wealth disparity, progressives argue, threatens the heart of our democracy - equal political participation and representation.

Conservatives argue that the "wealth gap" is nothing but collectivism repackaged, and that, as wealth is not a zero-sum game, one shouldn't worry about what anyone else earns. The 10th Commandment is patronizingly quoted as conservatives suggest the rabble shed all worldy desire.

Progressives, of course, don't suggest that "everyone should earn the same", regardless of how often the right says so. You don't have to envy your neighbor's cow to find it disconcerting that most people keep less of the wealth that they create while executives and shareholders take more of it.

But perhaps the right isn't being completely insincere. It is entirely feasible that conservatives believe that everyone else is secretly motivated by greed because that's what they're motivated by. Think of it as the economic version of Republican homophobia.

Remember Justice Scalia arguing that it's impossible to raise a family on $165,200? He's now been joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, who recently argued that an annual salary of $165,000 for federal judges presents nothing short of a constitutional crisis.

Justice Roberts believes that such low pay "threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal judiciary." The strength part is the old-line about how if you don't pay enough, nobody good will want to perform the job. This theory only applies to executives, though, and not to the steno pool.

More revealing, however, is the second part - the threat to the independence of the judiciary. What the Chief Justice is saying is that, without a pay raise, Americans cannot trust their judges not to take bribes.

Federal judges have ultimate job security, respect in the community, and earn more than 85 percent of the country. To contend that failure to pay them more will result in their ceasing to be independent is simply extortion.